About your Search

20120930
20121008
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)
calling williams -- colleen williams? >> what is the one thing we can do to improve education in this country? >> i have served over 15 years on different school boards. it plans to stand the importance of education. it works best on the local level, works best when you have board members and parents involved, a community in fall, and many have at decatur's involved. when of the mistakes that has been made at that federal level is the passage of the no child left behind act. it started out with good intentions, but if has not accomplished what it should have. it has taken educators at of the classroom, and we need to keep educators in the classroom if they are going to address the needs of students. important thing is to make sure these kids arrive in kindergarten ready to learn. if they are behind, they will never catch up. i will not win a nobel prize for making that discovery. the rhetoric of senator fischer and her proposals to not add up. her budget proposal will result in deep cuts both your early childhood education and head start. it is a fact. i am not exaggerating. i
thing we should be concentrating on to improve education in this country? >> i'm a former school board member of 20 years. i started out in a two-room school house, was elected to that board and then served over 15 years on the valentine school board. i understand the importance of education. it is a priority for me. but it works best at the local level. it works best when you have school board members involved, when you have parents involved, when you have a community involved and when you have educators involved. one of the mistakes i believe that has been made at the federal level is the package of the no child left behind act. i think it started out with good intentions, but it hasn't accomplished what it should have. it has taken educators out of the classroom, and we need to keep them in the classroom if they are going to address the needs of students. >> senator? >> the most important thing is to make sure that these kids arrive in kindergarten ready to learn. if they are behind, they are never going to catch up. i am not going to get a nobel prize for making that discovery. it
't afford to gut our investments in education. or clean energy. or research. and technology. we can't afford to roll back regulations on wall street banks or oil companies or insurance companies. that is not a jobs plan. it's not a plan to grow our economy. it's sure not a plan to strengthen our middle class. we have been there. we have tried that. we're not going back. we are moving forward. we've got a different view about how we create jobs and prosperity in this country. [applause] this country doesn't just succeed when just a few are doing well at the top. succeed is when the middle lass gets bigger. our economy doesn't grow from the top down. it grows from the middle out. we don't -- we don't believe that anybody's entitled to success in this country. but we do believe in opportunity. we believe in a country where hard work pays off. and responsibility is rewarded. and everybody's getting a fair shot. and everybody's doing their fair share. and everybody's playing by the same rules. that's the country we believe in. that's what we've been fighting for for the last four years. that's wh
. >> you can say i see what i did what i did in terms of my public education, my military service and business career but what made me decide to run for president? >> this was not that rational but that was something i stuck with. if you do not have a well educated population, it is even less rational. if we can get back to a really educated population, people will do a much better time -- will do it much better. >> if we had a perot , would things be different? >> i would have made an effort. i would promise to that. i would deal with the two parties day in and day out. once you have the support of the american people, the king probably get them to agree to anything, including a bad idea. which i would not have done. someone asked one time if he stood for anything -- if you stood for anything, i said i stand for reelection. [laughter] >> i think the easier question is yes because he would not does have focused on the short term. he would have also focused on the structural. our problem isot the correct deficits and debt. although they are shockingly high. the problem is what is n
about the atrosstiss to women. and so we haven't done a good enough job in educating our country about the bad guys that exist. that we need to meet them offshore before they come on shore. it's only been ten years since 9/11. >> first of all, i applaud the president for having brought our sons and daughters home from iraq. a war we should have never been in and a war i voted against. i have been an advocate in changing our policy in afghanistan to count terrorism. we're trying to prop up a government in afghanistan. couldn't terrorism requires far less troops and focuses at striking against al qaeda sweledl as well as any taliban insurjents we might need for the purpose of our fight. i believe that the draw down in afghanistan is well positioned. i'm actually an advocate of something that is more accelerated. i have been for quite some time and i believe we focus on couldn't terrorism which risks less lives. >> we're going to go back on the economy. you say you support a comprehensive solution to the deficit that includes revenues and cuts in spending. can you name one program you've
. in gruder, kennedy joined the majority in one critical point, that racial diversity as educational benefits that are substantial enough to make it a compelling interest that there is justifying the use of racial preferences if necessary to get this kind of racial diversity. kennedy dissented forcefully the narrow tailoring requirements. he said that the university had failed to show it had met a number of the principles that the majority had laid down and that the majority had given far too much difference to the university's claims. the principles are briefly that racial preferences should not be restored it to until race- neutral alternatives have been exhausted to serve the interests of racial diversity, that racial balancing is absolutely barred, and the context suggests the court means seeking to mirror the proportion of various groups in the population at large, either nationally or in the state, and also that racial preferences should not be perpetual. the court said in 25 years we expect this will not be necessary anymore. that is 2028. the logical application of the statement in gr
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (31 Dec 2014)